Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah. I mean wow! Interconnected ecosystem!! Birds no where to migrate to. Bees can tell other bees where a food supply is. Bees even know what a flower is! All by chance!

The odds are so loooow. 17,000,000,000,000,000 or less for one integrated anything in an ecosystem.
 
Last edited:
In four days a switch was repurposed to fill the place of the switch that had been removed. Changing a switch into a switch is not exactly a big problem. There are a lot of switches controlling most genes, so there are plenty of them around.
Do you recognize it as an example of evolution? Given that the offspring have genetically mutated it’s not clear how else you could describe it.
 
Unknown. Early man, like Bog, had to look around and figure out what was edible. Perhaps he watched animals and saw what they ate. Leaves were no good. Poisonous plants were poisonous and so on. Predatory animals likely looked at Bog and gave him a try. Which meant he had no chance to reproduce. Others may have walked around in confusion, watched the animals drinking water but died from starvation because what was food was not obvious.
 
Probably. I mean when anything’s possible, anything’s possible. But, most likely, certain things did not happen by blind chance. Guidance is a good explanation.
 
Unknown. Early man, like Bog, had to look around and figure out what was edible. Perhaps he watched animals and saw what they ate. Leaves were no good. Poisonous plants were poisonous and so on. Predatory animals likely looked at Bog and gave him a try. Which meant he had no chance to reproduce. Others may have walked around in confusion, watched the animals drinking water but died from starvation because what was food was not obvious.
Do you think the ecosystem would work if everything was only half evolved ?
 
Huh? Gen1:31 God saw all he had made, and indeed it was very good. Evening came and morning came: the sixth day.

He said “It was good” several times in these first verses.
 
https://www.ignatius.com/promotions/intelligentproject/popeevolution.htm

Catholics and Evolution

Must faithful Catholics accept evolution as true? No, but they may accept it, with the proper theological qualifications in place, without contradicting their faith. Whether man’s body actually evolved from a subhuman species isn’t, as such, a theological issue even if, indirectly, it may have some theological implications; it is mainly a question of scientific evidence. Perhaps John Paul agrees with those who think the scientific evidence supports evolution. But Catholics, as Catholics, are not obliged to hold that scientific assessment.

_But he didn’t endorse Darwin. He said that evolution, so far as it concerns man’s bodily origins, is really a theological non-issue. With certain qualifications such as God’s ultimate role in man’s creation, the direct creation of the human soul by God and man’s inherent dignity as a person, **the theory of evolution needn’t be seen as contrary to Christian revelation.
 
Last edited:
Well, if I had four limbs like an animal and the two on the left side were shorter than the two on the right, I might crawl but not walk. With nothing to eat, certain life forms would starve. An ecosystem is a complete arrangement between the simpler forms of life, insects, plants and man. It had to work the first time or man would keep dying through trial and error or even from not understanding the concept of a cliff. He might walk off it. Some fruit may look good but might be poisonous and that snake that just bit you in the leg isn’t mean, he’s just being a snake. So the odds of not surviving are very high without guidance, and with an ecosystem that is hostile, in many ways, to human life. Do you have the claws and speed or pounds of biting pressure of that large, furry animal? No.
 
Sure it is. The Biology textbook is all you need. Not those ancient holy books written by uneducated primitives. I mean, who needs the approval of any religious leader? We live, we die. And do stuff. And, if we’re lucky, our kids will be automatically better, faster, stronger, etc. by chance.
 
This theological extremism is not shared by the Catholic authority. Who am i to believe? The Catholic Authority or you?
 
There is teleology in nature, goal direction. I’m not sure anybody is denying that. But i do deny intelligent design.

From a philosophical standpoint I see no reasons why God is prohibited from setting things up so that these teleological potentialities can be expressed through natural processes. I don’t get what the problem is.
 
Last edited:
Isn’t it obvious!! I mean - hands down - the most ridiculous idea imaginable. I couldn’t build that nest. It has to have the right shape, the right internal spec.s, and interlocking materials to make sure it doesn’t fall apart.
 
Biologists don’t like the idea of teleology.

"Teleology or finality[1][2] is a reason or explanation for something in function of its end, purpose or goal.[3] It is derived from two Greek words: telos (end, goal, purpose) and logos (reason, explanation). A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as that of a fork, is called extrinsic.[4] Natural teleology, common in classical philosophy but controversial today,[5] contends that natural entities also have intrinsic purposes, irrespective of human use or opinion. For instance, Aristotle claimed that an acorn’s intrinsic telos is to become a fully grown oak tree.[6]

"Though ancient atomists rejected the notion of natural teleology, teleological accounts of non-personal or non-human nature were explored and often endorsed in ancient and medieval philosophies, but fell into disfavor during the modern era (1600–1900). In the late 18th century, Immanuel Kant used the concept of telos as a regulative principle in his Critique of Judgment. Teleology was also fundamental to the speculative philosophy of Georg Hegel.

“Contemporary philosophers and scientists are still discussing whether teleological talk is useful or accurate in doing modern philosophy and science. For instance, in 2012, Thomas Nagel proposed a non-Darwinian account of evolution that incorporates impersonal, natural teleological laws to explain the existence of life, consciousness, rationality, and objective value.[7]”
 
Biologists don’t like the idea of teleology.
Its irrelevant. Teleology is a philosophical concern. It cannot be determined through the scientific method. The scientists goal is to determine what natural processes are involved. Any attempt to speak beyond that and you are doing philosophy not science.
 
Thomas Nagel proposed a non-Darwinian account of evolution that incorporates impersonal, natural teleological laws to explain the existence of life, consciousness, rationality, and objective value.[7]”
And now Thomas nagel is doing philosophy. And i would argue that its incoherent to speak of teleology from a purely materialistic view in terms of physics being an ultimate sufficient cause.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top